Re: SAHA toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

April 22, 2007

I am just now catching up on my group e-mails.

"The residents want the council to pressure SAHA to release the results of mold testing. Residents say they've waited for weeks to see the results."

Withholding mold sampling results from residents especially in cases such as this where the health of the occupants are at issue, is an all too common and accepted practice. Skewed verbal reports of the results are often passed on to residents as the written copies of the actual test results are withheld. It is not at all surprising that these residents were simply told that they have a typical mildew problem.

I am also experiencing a situation where for months now a restoration company continues to withhold the written copy of mold sampling results.

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

SAHA residents address City Council, again04/13/2007 SilvaKENS 5 Eyewitness News Video: News 5 Reporting - Mad about Mirsol Homes On Thursday, residents in the San Housing Authority's Mirasol development once again demanded answers and action from the San City Council. Neighborhood residents, and their advocates, have been going to council meetings every week since January. They say their pleas still fall on deaf ears.

Fifteen people stood before the council to list what is wrong their homes and to say that their homes are making them sick. The residents want the council to pressure SAHA to release the results of mold testing. Residents say they've waited for weeks to see the results.

SAHA President and CEO Henry Alvarez also addressed the council. SAHA is still waiting for the results, he said.

The council did make any motions on the issue Thursday night. So, residents said, the council is not taking their problems seriously.

"I think it's time the city sits down, starts talking about these issues, and not making us come here like third-rate citizens to wait to stand before them and say, 'Thank you for coming,' " said Janet Ahmad of Home Owners for Better Building.

Councilwoman Patty Radle said she's been to Mirasol twice and said if she does not feel confident with the mold test results, she would like an independent and objective test done.

She expects SAHA to follow through on their responsibilities, she saidhttp://www.mysanantonio.com/news/citycouncil/stories/MYSA041207.mirasolcitycouncil.KENS.39b85d9.html

Say what?SAHA toxic mold tests are negativeWeb Posted: 04/19/2007 02:37 AM CDT GraceKENS 5 Eyewitness News Testing done on Mirasol Homes shows they do not have toxic mold, as residents claim, but rather typical household mildew, KB Homes reported Wednesday. KB hired two companies to test for mold in three Mirasol homes on Precious Street, including Estefana Battle's home. The testing was conducted because residents say toxic mold was the cause of many health problems. In their report of findings to the residents of the homes, KB suggested they use soap, water and a little bleach to clean up the mildew. That advice was described as "offensive" by some of the residents. "Oh, yeah, they tried to insult my intelligence and say that I am not a good housekeeper," Battle said. "They told us everything is normal and we need to clean harder," Crystal De Los Santos said. The results showed that in areas where moisture was present, the visible mold was typical household mildew. The homeowners remain unconvinced. De Los Santos said her son's health is so bad he needs two surgeries. More coverage â€¢ KENS video: _Mirasol residents show moldy homes_ (http://www2.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/video/NewsOnDemand/index.cfm?videos=45395) On Wednesday evening, Mirasol residents went to meet the city attorney face-to-face to discuss their options. In a few cases, KB said they will have to remove window sills and check for water damage. KB says three more inspections on the homes are pending. On Thursday, SAHA residents are going to Austin to talk to lawmakers about what else can be done. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 23, 2007

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.

Steve Temes

April 23, 2007

Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes

Steve,

Isn't that what is happening already? Results are results. By not sharing them with the other side, is what increases the distrust. Its difficult to work with someone in good faith if they are refusing to share key info. It makes it look like they are hiding something.

Sharon

Parents lose trust; Reassurance sought after tests for mould Sarnia Observer - Sarnia,ON,CanadaLINDSEY COAD Local News - Monday, April 23, 2007 http://www.theobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=498423 & catname=Local%20News & classif=Sarnia parents with children attending mould-affected schools say they're losing confidence in the public school board. They have requested test results from two of the many schools plagued by mould concerns in recent months, but say the data is not forthcoming. "It makes me feel very uncomfortable," said Lansdowne School council member Vicki Elipani. She asked to see air quality results from her daughter's portable classroom to be assured it's safe once a second mould cleanup is concluded. Mould was found behind the baseboards of the port-a-pac's hallway after a second contractor was hired by the Lambton Kent District School Board at the request of parents, including Elipani. Elipani said she has lost trust because the invasive tests detected mould after the portables were deemed safe last month. She was told she can look at the reports with the principal, but she wants her own copy. She said her daughter and her peers have been complaining of headaches. Parent Tammy Kavangh said she asked a superintendent for a copy of any reports about black mould found behind the wall in the Grades 7/8 portable classroom at High Park Public School. "I'm really not happy with the situation. The communication is not open here. I want to see their actions," she said. Her eight-year-old son is also complaining of headaches. Kavangh said a school memo issued Monday provides no details about the mould, which she wants to show her family doctor. Her son's special education classroom, along with three other classrooms, have been closed as a precaution and the students relocated to the gym and library. "We send our kids to school every day thinking that they're safe and they're not," Kavangh said. Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the mould report aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. "It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without the scientific knowledge," she said. Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added. Stucke said clearance testing will follow High Park's remediation and students were expected to return soon. Affected Lansdowne students have been at Devine Street since last Thursday as crews replaced drywall in their port-a-pac. Those students were expected to return Friday. Stucke said there are acceptable levels of mould growth in the port-a-pac with spore counts lower than outside. Parent Cumming is concerned because Devine's gym, girls' washroom and custodial rooms, were closed last month because of mould. Stucke said Devine was cleared following a cleanup over the March Break, but Cumming remains doubtful. "We've been told that Lansdowne's clean," she said. This year's mould problems at Lansdowne sparked frustrations from parents who noted $100,000 in repairs were done in 2005. "Portables aren't made to be permanent and they've made them permanent," Cumming said. Teachers in the special education and native language portables refused to return, despite previous clearance testing. They've been teaching in the school and their portables were removed. Parents want the entire port-a-pac torn down and a new addition built. See what's free at AOL.com.

April 23, 2007

Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes

Steve,

Isn't that what is happening already? Results are results. By not sharing them with the other side, is what increases the distrust. Its difficult to work with someone in good faith if they are refusing to share key info. It makes it look like they are hiding something.

Sharon

Parents lose trust; Reassurance sought after tests for mould Sarnia Observer - Sarnia,ON,CanadaLINDSEY COAD Local News - Monday, April 23, 2007 http://www.theobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=498423 & catname=Local%20News & classif=Sarnia parents with children attending mould-affected schools say they're losing confidence in the public school board. They have requested test results from two of the many schools plagued by mould concerns in recent months, but say the data is not forthcoming. "It makes me feel very uncomfortable," said Lansdowne School council member Vicki Elipani. She asked to see air quality results from her daughter's portable classroom to be assured it's safe once a second mould cleanup is concluded. Mould was found behind the baseboards of the port-a-pac's hallway after a second contractor was hired by the Lambton Kent District School Board at the request of parents, including Elipani. Elipani said she has lost trust because the invasive tests detected mould after the portables were deemed safe last month. She was told she can look at the reports with the principal, but she wants her own copy. She said her daughter and her peers have been complaining of headaches. Parent Tammy Kavangh said she asked a superintendent for a copy of any reports about black mould found behind the wall in the Grades 7/8 portable classroom at High Park Public School. "I'm really not happy with the situation. The communication is not open here. I want to see their actions," she said. Her eight-year-old son is also complaining of headaches. Kavangh said a school memo issued Monday provides no details about the mould, which she wants to show her family doctor. Her son's special education classroom, along with three other classrooms, have been closed as a precaution and the students relocated to the gym and library. "We send our kids to school every day thinking that they're safe and they're not," Kavangh said. Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the mould report aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health. "It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without the scientific knowledge," she said. Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added. Stucke said clearance testing will follow High Park's remediation and students were expected to return soon. Affected Lansdowne students have been at Devine Street since last Thursday as crews replaced drywall in their port-a-pac. Those students were expected to return Friday. Stucke said there are acceptable levels of mould growth in the port-a-pac with spore counts lower than outside. Parent Cumming is concerned because Devine's gym, girls' washroom and custodial rooms, were closed last month because of mould. Stucke said Devine was cleared following a cleanup over the March Break, but Cumming remains doubtful. "We've been told that Lansdowne's clean," she said. This year's mould problems at Lansdowne sparked frustrations from parents who noted $100,000 in repairs were done in 2005. "Portables aren't made to be permanent and they've made them permanent," Cumming said. Teachers in the special education and native language portables refused to return, despite previous clearance testing. They've been teaching in the school and their portables were removed. Parents want the entire port-a-pac torn down and a new addition built. See what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomedaol writes:

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QMEBe careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes

Steve,

It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.

If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/IEPs that are retained by the occupants.

The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested.

There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations-duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

In a message dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomedaol writes:

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested. Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QMEBe careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.Steve Temes

Steve,

It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.

If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/IEPs that are retained by the occupants.

The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested.

There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations-duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

Sharon,

I agree with you; if samples have been

taken than someone has already relied on the results and potentially

interpreted them (maybe not correctly) as well. IMHO, the only time I see

sample results not being released is when they are not beneficial to the one

who paid for them and that creates a distrusted position. Steve is also correct

in that you may not always like what you see and some day yours could be

requested.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007

12:13 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: SAHA

toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 P.M.

Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs writes:

Be careful

what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can

interpret them to mean whatever they want.

Steve Temes

Steve,

Isn't that what is happening

already? Results are results. By not sharing them with the other

side, is what increases the distrust. Its difficult to work with someone in

good faith if they are refusing to share key info. It makes it look like

they are hiding something.

Sharon

Parents lose trust;

Reassurance sought after tests for mould

Sarnia Observer - Sarnia,ON,Canada

LINDSEY COAD

Local News - Monday, April 23, 2007

http://www.theobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?

contentid=498423 & catname=Local%20News & classif=

Sarnia parents

with children attending mould-affected schools say

they're losing confidence in the public school board. They have

requested test results from two of the many schools plagued by mould

concerns in recent months, but say the data is not forthcoming.

" It makes me feel very uncomfortable, " said Lansdowne School

council

member Vicki Elipani.

She asked to see air quality results from her daughter's portable

classroom to be assured it's safe once a second mould cleanup is

concluded.

Mould was found behind the baseboards of the port-a-pac's hallway

after a second contractor was hired by the Lambton Kent District

School Board at the request of parents, including Elipani.

Elipani said she has lost trust because the invasive tests detected

mould after the portables were deemed safe last month. She was told

she can look at the reports with the principal, but she wants her

own copy.

She said her daughter and her peers have been complaining of

headaches.

Parent Tammy Kavangh said she asked a superintendent for a copy of

any reports about black mould found behind the wall in the Grades

7/8 portable classroom at High

Park Public

School.

" I'm really not happy with the situation. The communication is not

open here. I want to see their actions, " she said. Her eight-year-

old son is also complaining of headaches.

Kavangh said a school memo issued Monday provides no details about

the mould, which she wants to show her family doctor.

Her son's special education classroom, along with three other

classrooms, have been closed as a precaution and the students

relocated to the gym and library.

" We send our kids to school every day thinking that they're safe and

they're not, " Kavangh said.

Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the mould report

aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour

and the Ministry of Health.

" It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without

the scientific knowledge, " she said.

Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's

consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added.

Stucke said clearance testing will follow High Park's

remediation

and students were expected to return soon.

Affected Lansdowne students have been at Devine Street since last

Thursday as crews replaced drywall in their port-a-pac. Those

students were expected to return Friday.

Stucke said there are acceptable levels of mould growth in the port-

a-pac with spore counts lower than outside.

Parent Cumming is concerned because Devine's gym, girls'

washroom and custodial rooms, were closed last month because of

mould.

Stucke said Devine was cleared following a cleanup over the March

Break, but Cumming remains doubtful. " We've been told that

Lansdowne's clean, " she said.

This year's mould problems at Lansdowne sparked frustrations from

parents who noted $100,000 in repairs were done in 2005.

" Portables aren't made to be permanent and they've made them

permanent, " Cumming said.

Teachers in the special education and native language portables

refused to return, despite previous clearance testing. They've been

teaching in the school and their portables were removed.

Parents want the entire port-a-pac torn down and a new addition

built.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

Sharon,

I agree with you; if samples have been

taken than someone has already relied on the results and potentially

interpreted them (maybe not correctly) as well. IMHO, the only time I see

sample results not being released is when they are not beneficial to the one

who paid for them and that creates a distrusted position. Steve is also correct

in that you may not always like what you see and some day yours could be

requested.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007

12:13 AM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: SAHA

toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 P.M.

Pacific Daylight Time, AirwaysEnvcs writes:

Be careful

what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can

interpret them to mean whatever they want.

Steve Temes

Steve,

Isn't that what is happening

already? Results are results. By not sharing them with the other

side, is what increases the distrust. Its difficult to work with someone in

good faith if they are refusing to share key info. It makes it look like

they are hiding something.

Sharon

Parents lose trust;

Reassurance sought after tests for mould

Sarnia Observer - Sarnia,ON,Canada

LINDSEY COAD

Local News - Monday, April 23, 2007

http://www.theobserver.ca/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?

contentid=498423 & catname=Local%20News & classif=

Sarnia parents

with children attending mould-affected schools say

they're losing confidence in the public school board. They have

requested test results from two of the many schools plagued by mould

concerns in recent months, but say the data is not forthcoming.

" It makes me feel very uncomfortable, " said Lansdowne School

council

member Vicki Elipani.

She asked to see air quality results from her daughter's portable

classroom to be assured it's safe once a second mould cleanup is

concluded.

Mould was found behind the baseboards of the port-a-pac's hallway

after a second contractor was hired by the Lambton Kent District

School Board at the request of parents, including Elipani.

Elipani said she has lost trust because the invasive tests detected

mould after the portables were deemed safe last month. She was told

she can look at the reports with the principal, but she wants her

own copy.

She said her daughter and her peers have been complaining of

headaches.

Parent Tammy Kavangh said she asked a superintendent for a copy of

any reports about black mould found behind the wall in the Grades

7/8 portable classroom at High

Park Public

School.

" I'm really not happy with the situation. The communication is not

open here. I want to see their actions, " she said. Her eight-year-

old son is also complaining of headaches.

Kavangh said a school memo issued Monday provides no details about

the mould, which she wants to show her family doctor.

Her son's special education classroom, along with three other

classrooms, have been closed as a precaution and the students

relocated to the gym and library.

" We send our kids to school every day thinking that they're safe and

they're not, " Kavangh said.

Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the mould report

aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour

and the Ministry of Health.

" It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without

the scientific knowledge, " she said.

Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's

consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added.

Stucke said clearance testing will follow High Park's

remediation

and students were expected to return soon.

Affected Lansdowne students have been at Devine Street since last

Thursday as crews replaced drywall in their port-a-pac. Those

students were expected to return Friday.

Stucke said there are acceptable levels of mould growth in the port-

a-pac with spore counts lower than outside.

Parent Cumming is concerned because Devine's gym, girls'

washroom and custodial rooms, were closed last month because of

mould.

Stucke said Devine was cleared following a cleanup over the March

Break, but Cumming remains doubtful. " We've been told that

Lansdowne's clean, " she said.

This year's mould problems at Lansdowne sparked frustrations from

parents who noted $100,000 in repairs were done in 2005.

" Portables aren't made to be permanent and they've made them

permanent, " Cumming said.

Teachers in the special education and native language portables

refused to return, despite previous clearance testing. They've been

teaching in the school and their portables were removed.

Parents want the entire port-a-pac torn down and a new addition

built.

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

and All,

At the risk of going into a touchy subject, the concept that CIH's, thru their cannons of ethical conduct, are to keep info confidential from those living and working within the building...and are only to release this info with the permission of the client/employer, has always bothered me and many others, too. Shouldn't the first ethical obligation be to the health and safety of fellow man (and children) over the business relationship with a client? (I only site AIHA cuz I don't know what IAQA and others say).

And I don't mean to be rude, but you guys need to know this. This is something that does not bode well for the perception of integrity of your industry in the eyes of teachers, employees, school children, parents, insureds, new home buyers, workers comp appliers, etc. It makes people not think highly of the industrywide ethics, when they and their loved ones have been left unaware in a sick environment - while you all (you all is an "in general term" not directed at ANYONE) knew it was sick, yet did not immediately inform because of a business obligation with the owner/insurer, etc.

I can't tell you how bad it personally angered me, when I read this practice was stated as an "ethical cannon".

From the AIHA Code of Ethics:

CANONS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINESIndustrial Hygienists shall:1. Practice their profession following recognized scientific principles with the realization that the lives, health and well-being of people may depend upon their professional judgment and that they are obligated to protect the health and well-being of people.

Industrial Hygienists should base their professional opinions, judgments, interpretations of findings and recommendations upon recognized scientific principles and practices which preserve and protect the health and well-being of people. Industrial Hygienists shall not distort, alter or hide facts in rendering professional opinions or recommendations. Industrial Hygienists shall not knowingly make statements that misrepresent or omit facts.

2. Counsel affected parties factually regarding potential health risks and precautions necessary to avoid adverse health effects.

Industrial Hygienists should obtain information regarding potential health risks from reliable sources. Industrial Hygienists should review the pertinent, readily available information to factually inform the affected parties. Industrial Hygienists should initiate appropriate measures to see that the health risks are effectively communicated to the affected parties. Parties may include management, clients, employees, contractor employees, or others dependent on circumstances at the time.

3. Keep confidential personal and business information obtained during the exercise of industrial hygiene activities, except when required by law or overriding health and safety considerations.

Industrial Hygienists should report and communicate information which is necessary to protect the health and safety of workers and the community. If their professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the health and lives of people are endangered, industrial hygienists shall notify their employer or client or other such authority, as may be appropriate. Industrial Hygienists should release confidential personal or business information only with the information owners' express authorization, except when there is a duty to disclose information as required by law or regulation.

There are no laws or regulations that require a CIH to disclose the info to the occupants, are there?

4. Avoid circumstances where a compromise of professional judgment or conflict of interest may arise.

Industrial Hygienists should promptly disclose known or potential conflicts of interest to parties that may be affected. Industrial Hygienists shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration from any party, directly or indirectly, which is intended to influence professional judgment. Industrial Hygienists shall not offer any substantial gift, or other valuable consideration, in order to secure work. Industrial Hygienists should advise their clients or employer when they initially believe a project to improve industrial hygiene conditions will not be successful. Industrial Hygienists should not accept work that negatively impacts the ability to fulfill existing commitments. In the event that this Code of Ethics appears to conflict with another professional code to which industrial hygienists are bound, they will resolve the conflict in the manner that protects the health of affected parties.

If a CIH is working for a property owner and test results show that the molds/levels are hazardous for the occupants, yet the CIH is required by the Code of Ethics not to tell the occupants unless the owner gives permission, then isn't everyday a conflict of interest?

SharonSee what's free at AOL.com.

April 24, 2007

wrote: "It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice."

,

I'm still saying that sampling is a tool to be used by experienced, trained professionals to make decisions about what action to take with regard to further inspection or cleaning. When people who haven't seen many sets of mold testing data look at a lab report, they don't know what they are looking at and see what they want to see.

I agree with the logic behind the decision:

"Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the mould report

aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour

and the Ministry of Health.

"It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without

the scientific knowledge," she said.

Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's

consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added."

It seems to me that the data is not the problem for School Administration but that the use of the data by people without the scientific knowledge is. Evidently, Administration doesn't trust the angry parents as much as vice versa.

As long as there are "opposing parties" and sampling is being used to assess health risk, I don't see a problem being solved. I see lawyers making money. All the data will then be shared in the discovery process.

Again, people have unreasonable expectations with regard to the value of sampling in assessing health risk. Is it any wonder the Health Canada Annex wants people to get away from this approach?

Steve Temes

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.

Steve Temes

Steve,

It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.

If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/IEPs that are retained by the occupants.

The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested.

There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations-duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

April 24, 2007

Just a data point.. I've heard repeatedly that the results of spore testing, bulk sampling, etc, shouldn't be used to show that situations 'are safe' (for 'clearance') because they are notoriously inaccurate and often show false negatives.. Some kinds of testing, like QPCR may be a little bit better.. but at best, its just a snapshot in time.. and stachybotrys often doesnt show up at all in spore testing, even when there's a serious problem..

April 24, 2007

Just a data point.. I've heard repeatedly that the results of spore testing, bulk sampling, etc, shouldn't be used to show that situations 'are safe' (for 'clearance') because they are notoriously inaccurate and often show false negatives.. Some kinds of testing, like QPCR may be a little bit better.. but at best, its just a snapshot in time.. and stachybotrys often doesnt show up at all in spore testing, even when there's a serious problem..

April 24, 2007

:

I have been stewing on your original post for some time. My first impression, regarding your recommendation that laws should be passed to require divulging sample results, was strongly negative. But I do see your point, and it has merit....so I pondered it for a while. My final opinion is still strongly negative – I do not agree.

Making more laws is NOT the answer to resolve this issue. Sample results belong to the entity that paid to have them collected and analyzed – it is an ownership thing, and the owner should be free to make the decision to release or not release. Another law is counter-productive. To threaten the owner (of sample results) with a criminal offense is not good and I believe the law will have a negative effect. Moreover, I believe that the Ballard case in Texas clearly signals what may happen to the owner who has sample results, that indicates a potentially immediate harmful and injurious condition, and decides to withhold data....They got roasted! They got BBQ’d. It cost them plenty. And their careers were demolished.

If a tenant wants results to any sampling within their occupied space, they should request a copy of the results at the time they grant access for the owner to collect samples. If there is a dispute, then results can be discovered lawfully and legally using current means. It is a no-brainer. If a law were put into place that made it illegal to withhold sample results, that law would conflict with privileged information/actions that attorneys engage in to generate evidence for trial; and then the laws regulating privileged actions would also warrant changes and the (your) law would breech attorney confidentiality – the trickle-down effect would be huge! While I agree that sometimes sample results are withheld to have negative information kept close-to-the-vest, and it may indicate that some occupant may be harmed, I, for one, have seen sample results withheld because the results did not show bad or harmful data, and were therefore not helpful to the personal injury lawsuit (plaintiff side) and were not divulged to the other (defendant’s) side because it would have been helpful to their case, i.e., that the occupants were not being harmed – AT THAT TIME. And as mentioned in IEQuality, sample results are not predictive of exposure and represent only part of the data set necessary to establish a causative action. I, for one, have not been involved in a situation where sample results, that showed a significant and potentially harmful condition, were withheld. And I say “significant and potentially harmful” because it depends upon the time, place, location, and potential receptor. If that situation ever occurs on my shift, I will make my opinions known and walk, probably run, from the project/client. Moreover, I strongly believe that if an owner withholds data that clearly represents a harmful condition, and that owner has knowledge of that condition, and that owner fails to mitigate and knowingly exposures others to harm......well, that owner will get roasted in civil negligence; albeit, it may be too late for those that got exposed/harmed/injured. Hence the crux of your point and suggestion.

Bottom line, and after some serious thought, I do not agree that a mandatory disclosure law, with offenses punishable via the criminal court system, is good or necessary.

Laws need to be passed making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant whose home was tested.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

Be careful what you ask for, . No one will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they want.

Steve Temes

Steve,

It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.

If there were laws in place specifically addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would be no change for those environmental consultants/IEPs that are retained by the occupants.

The only entity that would withhold mold sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants. The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their results to the residents whose homes they tested.

There already exists in place ethical and legal obligations-duties of specific parties. All too often these are being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics. However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

April 25, 2007

Hey All,

What are the odds that the hygienist the parents would hire, would come up with the exact same results that the school board hired? Besides the ethical implications of the school not releasing info to those who are functioning in a thought to be contaminated environment, it doesn't seem like a very smart business move to not release. Wouldn't it be better if all involved were trying to work from the same test results to resolve the problem? If the parents were not satisfied with the validity of the schools' testing, then they could go get their own tests. But it seems dumb to me to force someone to bring in a second tester. It causes the lines to be drawn in the sand.

Sharon

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents can do is hire an expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now both sides are satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a copy of the results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents are concerned their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go with the expert.

EnviroBob

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 25, 2007

Sharon,

I agree with you although the problem

begins when the EP has a fiduciary relationship with it clients. So don’t

shot the EP demand the results from the EP’s client. All that said, in

Ma. There is a law called “The right to know”. It was enacted because

of the asbestos concerns. The results could not be held from the occupants. I

have used the same law on behalf of my clients when the EP’s client (not

the EP) would not release the results. Normally what happens is the client

calls the EP and has the EP release the results. Check in your area and see if

there is a similar law (also check with the EPA for hazard materials, etc).

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007

10:01 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: SAHA

toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

and All,

At the risk of going into a touchy subject, the

concept that CIH's, thru their cannons of ethical conduct, are to keep info

confidential from those living and working within the building...and are only

to release this info with the permission of the client/employer, has always

bothered me and many others, too. Shouldn't the first ethical obligation

be to the health and safety of fellow man (and children) over the business

relationship with a client? (I only site AIHA cuz I don't know what IAQA

and others say).

And I don't mean to be rude, but you guys need

to know this. This is something that does not bode well for the

perception of integrity of your industry in the eyes of teachers,

employees, school children, parents, insureds, new home buyers, workers comp

appliers, etc. It makes people not think highly of the industrywide

ethics, when they and their loved ones have been left unaware in a

sick environment - while you all (you all is an " in general

term " not directed at ANYONE) knew it was sick, yet did not immediately

inform because of a business obligation with the owner/insurer, etc.

I can't tell you how bad it

personally angered me, when I read this practice was stated as an

" ethical cannon " .

From the AIHA Code of Ethics:

CANONS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND

INTERPRETIVE GUIDELINES

Industrial Hygienists shall:

1. Practice their profession following recognized scientific principles with

the realization that the lives, health and well-being of people may depend upon

their professional judgment and that they are obligated to protect the health

and well-being of people.

Industrial Hygienists should

base their professional opinions, judgments, interpretations of findings

and recommendations upon recognized scientific principles and practices

which preserve and protect the health and well-being of people.

Industrial Hygienists shall not

distort, alter or hide facts in rendering professional opinions or

recommendations.

Industrial Hygienists shall not

knowingly make statements that misrepresent or omit facts.

2. Counsel affected parties factually regarding

potential health risks and precautions necessary to avoid adverse health

effects.

Industrial Hygienists should

obtain information regarding potential health risks from reliable sources.

Industrial Hygienists should

review the pertinent, readily available information to factually inform

the affected parties.

Industrial Hygienists should

initiate appropriate measures to see that the health risks are effectively

communicated to the affected parties.

Parties may include management,

clients, employees, contractor employees, or others dependent on

circumstances at the time.

3. Keep confidential personal and business

information obtained during the exercise of industrial hygiene activities, except

when required by law or overriding health and safety considerations.

Industrial Hygienists should

report and communicate information which is necessary to protect the

health and safety of workers and the community.

If their professional judgment

is overruled under circumstances where the health and lives of people are

endangered, industrial hygienists shall notify their employer or client or

other such authority, as may be appropriate.

Industrial Hygienists should

release confidential personal or business information only with the

information owners' express authorization, except when there is a duty to

disclose information as required by law or regulation.

There are no laws or

regulations that require a CIH to disclose the info to the occupants, are

there?

4. Avoid circumstances where a compromise of

professional judgment or conflict of interest may arise.

Industrial Hygienists should

promptly disclose known or potential conflicts of interest to parties that

may be affected.

Industrial Hygienists shall not

solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration from any

party, directly or indirectly, which is intended to influence professional

judgment.

Industrial Hygienists shall not

offer any substantial gift, or other valuable consideration, in order to

secure work.

Industrial Hygienists should

advise their clients or employer when they initially believe a project to

improve industrial hygiene conditions will not be successful.

Industrial Hygienists should

not accept work that negatively impacts the ability to fulfill existing

commitments.

In the event that this Code of

Ethics appears to conflict with another professional code to which

industrial hygienists are bound, they will resolve the conflict in the

manner that protects the health of affected parties.

If a CIH is working for

a property owner and test results show that the molds/levels are hazardous for

the occupants, yet the CIH is required by the Code of Ethics not to tell the

occupants unless the owner gives permission, then isn't everyday a

conflict of interest?

Sharon

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 25, 2007

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents

can do is hire an expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now

both sides are satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a

copy of the results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents

are concerned their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go

with the expert.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of AirwaysEnv@...

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007

10:08 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: SAHA

toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

wrote: " It appears that what you are saying here is that it is OK

for the consultants and others retained by the opposing parties to the

occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but that it is not

OK for the consultants and others retained by the residents. It is the

withholding of test results from occupants by the opposing parties where this

has been an accepted practice. "

,

I'm still saying that sampling is a tool to be used by experienced, trained

professionals to make decisions about what action to take with regard to

further inspection or cleaning. When people who haven't seen many sets of

mold testing data look at a lab report, they don't know what they are looking

at and see what they want to see.

I agree with the logic behind the decision:

" Education director Gayle Stucke said copies of the

mould report

aren't being released based on advice from the Ministry of Labour

and the Ministry of Health.

" It would not be meaningful to release reports to a person without

the scientific knowledge, " she said.

Anyone wishing to review the tests with explanation from the board's

consultant or a health and safety expert is welcome, she added. "

It seems to me that the data is not the problem for School Administration but

that the use of the data by people without the scientific knowledge is.

Evidently, Administration doesn't trust the angry parents as much as vice

versa.

As long as there are " opposing parties " and sampling is being used to

assess health risk, I don't see a problem being solved. I see lawyers

making money. All the data will then be shared in the discovery process.

Again, people have unreasonable expectations with regard to the value of

sampling in assessing health risk. Is it any wonder the Health Canada

Annex wants people to get away from this approach?

Steve Temes

In a message dated 4/24/2007 8:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomedaol

writes:

In a message dated 4/23/2007 2:38:43 PM Pacific Daylight

Time, AirwaysEnvcs writes:

In a message

dated 4/23/2007 10:40:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, bobbinsbiomedaol

writes:

Laws need to be passed

making the practice of withholding test results [for mold sampling] from the

occupant, illegal. Included in this law should be a set reasonable time frame

for compliance. No builder, administrator, homeowner association, landlord, environmental

company, consultant, IEP, restoration/remediation company or otherwise

should have the right to withhold mold sampling results. This is

especially important when it pertains to the health and safety of the occupant

whose home was tested.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

Be careful what you ask for, . No one

will even take samples when anybody can interpret them to mean whatever they

want.

Steve Temes

Steve,

It appears that what you are saying here

is that it is OK for the consultants and others retained by the opposing

parties to the occupants, to interpret the test results any way they want, but

that it is not OK for the consultants and others retained by the

residents. It is the withholding of test results from occupants by the

opposing parties where this has been an accepted practice.

If there were laws in place specifically

addressing this issue making it illegal to withhold test results from the

residents (as the building occupants whose homes were tested), the only ones

that would stop taking samples are those working for defense. There would

be no change for those environmental consultants/IEPs that are retained by

the occupants.

The only entity that would withhold mold

sampling results from the occupant would be the opposing parties to the

occupant. It is the very consultants retained by the opposing parties

that are interpreting results in a way that protects the opposing parties and

in some cases in doing so, jeopardizes the health and safety of the occupants.

The only time I have seen test results withheld from occupants is when the

results reflect the liability of the party that is withholding these very

results. Otherwise opposing parties have been more then glad to release their

results to the residents whose homes they tested.

There already exists in place ethical and

legal obligations-duties of specific parties. All too often these are

being breached in cases when a party withholds the test results from the

building residents. This holds especially true where the health of the

occupants may be affected by this action. However, this is simply ignored by

all too many people. My best guess is that the IAQ, AIHA in setting new

ethical standards and codes, will not be addressing this breach of ethics.

However, I would much rather be wrong and happy then right and miserable.

Bobbins, RN, L.Ac, QME

April 25, 2007

Sharon,

Good questions and observations. I've been hired by the parents of a sick child to review the school's test results and opinions of the school board's consultant at their kitchen table. I've been in front of the angry parents at a school board meeting. I've been brought in to consult for the school's environmental committee consisting of representatives of the teachers, maintenance staff and administration. Nothing works better than good communication on all fronts to get everyone to focus on how to improve things instead of blaming and accusing one another. But first, the problems need to be correctly identified and acknowledged so that everyone can agree on the best solutions. Trust is very important and things just get ugly without it. That's why it is better to work with the real problems in the real building than to argue about what the numbers in a lab report mean. The school nurse usually knows which rooms the sick kids are coming from. The teachers and maintenance staff usually know where the leaks and mold are.

When competent consultants look at a real problem to be solved, things generally go pretty well. Representatives of the parents (or teachers) and school administration, with their respective consultants, should meet and have open discussions. If there are differences of opinion, those differences should be communicated to all and resolved as a team with input from, and agreement of, the consultants. I always welcome the opportunity to discuss how to "solve the problem" with a consultant for the "opposing party", hopefully pre-litigation. Sometimes things have become too polarized and all trust is lost, but, with a good understanding of the problem, a best course of action can usually be agreed upon without a mediator.

Test results should not be withheld. Doing so is probably a bad "business move" because it creates distrust. However, test results should not be in the hands of people who don't know what they mean, either.

I should point out that the basis for this discussion is a presumption that the test results will indicate whether the building is safe for the kids when we (and Health Canada) already know that you shouldn't assess health risk using test results alone. "Some mold" does not translate into "unsafe". There is much more to be considered.

Steve Temes

Hey All,

What are the odds that the hygienist the parents would hire, would come up with the exact same results that the school board hired? Besides the ethical implications of the school not releasing info to those who are functioning in a thought to be contaminated environment, it doesn't seem like a very smart business move to not release. Wouldn't it be better if all involved were trying to work from the same test results to resolve the problem? If the parents were not satisfied with the validity of the schools' testing, then they could go get their own tests. But it seems dumb to me to force someone to bring in a second tester. It causes the lines to be drawn in the sand.

Sharon

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents can do is hire an expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now both sides are satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a copy of the results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents are concerned their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go with the expert.

EnviroBob

April 25, 2007

Sharon,

Good questions and observations. I've been hired by the parents of a sick child to review the school's test results and opinions of the school board's consultant at their kitchen table. I've been in front of the angry parents at a school board meeting. I've been brought in to consult for the school's environmental committee consisting of representatives of the teachers, maintenance staff and administration. Nothing works better than good communication on all fronts to get everyone to focus on how to improve things instead of blaming and accusing one another. But first, the problems need to be correctly identified and acknowledged so that everyone can agree on the best solutions. Trust is very important and things just get ugly without it. That's why it is better to work with the real problems in the real building than to argue about what the numbers in a lab report mean. The school nurse usually knows which rooms the sick kids are coming from. The teachers and maintenance staff usually know where the leaks and mold are.

When competent consultants look at a real problem to be solved, things generally go pretty well. Representatives of the parents (or teachers) and school administration, with their respective consultants, should meet and have open discussions. If there are differences of opinion, those differences should be communicated to all and resolved as a team with input from, and agreement of, the consultants. I always welcome the opportunity to discuss how to "solve the problem" with a consultant for the "opposing party", hopefully pre-litigation. Sometimes things have become too polarized and all trust is lost, but, with a good understanding of the problem, a best course of action can usually be agreed upon without a mediator.

Test results should not be withheld. Doing so is probably a bad "business move" because it creates distrust. However, test results should not be in the hands of people who don't know what they mean, either.

I should point out that the basis for this discussion is a presumption that the test results will indicate whether the building is safe for the kids when we (and Health Canada) already know that you shouldn't assess health risk using test results alone. "Some mold" does not translate into "unsafe". There is much more to be considered.

Steve Temes

Hey All,

What are the odds that the hygienist the parents would hire, would come up with the exact same results that the school board hired? Besides the ethical implications of the school not releasing info to those who are functioning in a thought to be contaminated environment, it doesn't seem like a very smart business move to not release. Wouldn't it be better if all involved were trying to work from the same test results to resolve the problem? If the parents were not satisfied with the validity of the schools' testing, then they could go get their own tests. But it seems dumb to me to force someone to bring in a second tester. It causes the lines to be drawn in the sand.

Sharon

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents can do is hire an expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now both sides are satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a copy of the results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents are concerned their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go with the expert.

EnviroBob

April 25, 2007

Sharon,

I was referring to hiring the EP to get

the results from the school, not take new samples. Remember they said

they didn’t want to release the results to an unqualified person.

See previous post below.

EnviroBob

From: iequality [mailto:iequality ] On Behalf Of snk1955@...

Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007

12:18 PM

To: iequality

Subject: Re: Re: SAHA

toxic mold tests are negative Say what?

Hey All,

What are the odds that the hygienist the

parents would hire, would come up with the exact same results that the school

board hired? Besides the ethical implications of the school not releasing info

to those who are functioning in a thought to be contaminated environment, it

doesn't seem like a very smart business move to not release. Wouldn't it

be better if all involved were trying to work from the same test results to

resolve the problem? If the parents were not satisfied with the validity

of the schools' testing, then they could go get their own tests. But it

seems dumb to me to force someone to bring in a second tester. It causes

the lines to be drawn in the sand.

Sharon

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents can do is hire an

expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now both sides are

satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a copy of the

results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents are concerned

their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go with the expert.

EnviroBob

See what's free at AOL.com.

April 25, 2007

I think that its really depressing and also telling that the school board sees itself immediately as an adversary to the parents even though theparents are paying their salaries.. That right there should cause them to pause and reflect about this situation...

Hey All,

What are the odds that the hygienist the parents would hire, would come up with the exact same results that the school board hired? Besides the ethical implications of the school not releasing info to those who are functioning in a thought to be contaminated environment, it doesn't seem like a very smart business move to not release. Wouldn't it be better if all involved were trying to work from the same test results to resolve the problem? If the parents were not satisfied with the validity of the schools' testing, then they could go get their own tests. But it seems dumb to me to force someone to bring in a second tester. It causes the lines to be drawn in the sand.

Sharon

Steve,

I agree with your post. What the parents can do is hire an expert to request the results and advise them thereafter. Now both sides are satisfied. Hopefully they will get a real expert. To just get a copy of the results and do nothing is meaningless. Furthermore if the parents are concerned their expert may become influenced have a designated parent go with the expert.

EnviroBob

April 25, 2007

Sharon:

I understand your concerns about the current joint industrial hygiene

Code of Ethics, regards to disclosal of information gathered during

an inspection of a facility. Please keep in mind that, until very

recently, most CIH's worked for the company rather than as an outside

consultant. This has changed, obviously, over the last 10-15 years.

But there are still a large number of CIH's that are employed by the

corporations who are not consultants to the public.

In addition, it is important to remember that CIH's employed by

consultants are not public health officials. They do not make the

decisions on the disclosal of test results at schools or public

buildings. This is left to the Health Department of the city or

state. I worked in many situations with public health officials, and

they have a tough job to do, to determine what information is to be

released to the public. It is about risk communication and

management, and making sure the data is accurate. Misinformation and

miscommunication, in many cases, is a worse 'hazard' than the initial

situation.

In December, 2006, a proposed change to the Ethical Principles was

made, and I have printed the proposal below. Please note Section D

on 'Public Health and Safety'. I think that this answers some of

your questions on this matter. This is still being reviewed, but I

expect that it will be adopted soon by all of the industrial hygiene

organizations (ABIH, AIHA, AAIH, AGCIH).

Section B discusses the responsibilities to the client, the employees

and the public. B.4 is the statement regarding 'sensitive

information', and its release with permission of the client. This

may, in some cases, also involve medical data of employees. I think

that there does need to be an agreement, preferably agreed before the

project begins, as to how and when information on sampling will be

disclosed. I always discuss this with my clients before proceeding

with the work.

Finally, I agree that it is a terrible situation when people are

exposed to potentially hazardous environments. That is why I got

into this profession, to help people to avoid illness and remain

healthy at their workplace, and now at home. I don't know of a

single CIH that doesn't feel the same as I do about this. We work

hard every day to protect people who find themselves in this

situation. I have never had a client tell me directly not to

disclose sampling data that shows a hazardous exposure to an

employee. I would not work for a client that requested that. I

believe that the vast majority of CIH's would act in the same manner.

Don

JOINT INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE ASSOCIATIONS

MEMBER ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

CONFIDENTIAL/DRAFT 3.0

-A. Responsibilities to the Professional Organizations and the

Profession.

In order to satisfy organizational and legal policies and rules,

members should:

1. Comply with laws, regulations, policies, and ethical standards

governing professional practice and related activities, including

those of professional associations and credentialing organizations.

2. Provide accurate and truthful information to professional

associations and credentialing organizations.

3. ate with professional associations and credentialing

organizations concerning ethics matters and the collection of related

information.

4. Report apparent violations of applicable professional

organizations' ethical standards to appropriate organizations and

agencies upon a reasonable and clear factual basis.

5. Refrain from any public behavior that is clearly in violation of

accepted professional and legal standards.

6. Promote equal opportunity and diversity in professional activities.

7. Support and disseminate the association's ethics principles to

other professionals.

B. Responsibilities to Clients, Employers, and the Public.

In order to provide ethical professional services, members should:

1. Deliver competent services in a timely manner, and with objective

and professional judgment.

2. Recognize the limitations of professional ability, and to provide

services only when qualified. The member is responsible for

determining his/her own professional abilities based on education,

knowledge, skills, practice experience, and other relevant

considerations.

3. Provide appropriate professional referrals when unable to provide

competent professional assistance.

4. Maintain and respect the confidentiality of sensitive information

obtained in the course of professional or related activities unless:

the information pertains to an illegal activity; a court or

governmental agency lawfully directs the release of the information;

or, the client/employer expressly authorizes the release of specific

information.

5. Provide truthful and accurate representations to the public in

advertising, public statements/representations, and in the

preparation of estimates concerning costs, services, and expected

results.

6. Properly use professional credentials and provide truthful and

accurate representations concerning education, experience, competency

and the performance of services.

7. Recognize and respect the intellectual property rights of others,

and to act in an accurate, truthful, and complete manner, including

activities related to professional work and research.

8. Affix or authorize the use of his/her seal, stamp or signature

only when the document is prepared by the certificant/candidate or

someone under their direction and control.

9. Refrain from business activities and practices that unlawfully

restrict competition.

C. Conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety.

In order to satisfy organizational policies and legal requirements

concerning possible conflicts of interest, members should:

1. Disclose to clients, employers, or customers significant

circumstances that could be construed as a conflict of interest, or

an appearance of impropriety.

2. Avoid conduct that could cause a conflict of interest with a

client, employer, employee, or customer.

3. Ensure that a conflict of interest does not compromise legitimate

interests of a client, employer, employee, or customer, or

influence/interfere with professional judgments.

4. Refrain from offering, or accepting inappropriate payments, gifts,

or other forms of compensation or benefits in order to secure work,

or which are intended to influence professional judgment.

D. Public health and safety.

In order to satisfy organizational policies and legal requirements

concerning public health and safety, members should:

1. Follow appropriate health and safety procedures to protect

clients, employers, customers, employees, and the public from

conditions where injury and damage are reasonably foreseeable.

2. Inform appropriate governmental or professional bodies of

violations of legal and organizational professional requirements.

April 25, 2007